The Principles of Public Administration Reform

Transcription

1 The Principles of Public Administration Reform 2 Rue André Pascal Paris Cedex 16 France mail to:sigmaweb@oecd.org Tel: +33 (0) Fax: +33 (0) SIGMA is a joint initiative of the OECD and the EU, principally financed by the EU. This document has been produced with the financial assistance of the European Union. It should not be reported as representing the official views of the EU, the OECD or its member countries, or of beneficiaries participating in the SIGMA Programme. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the author(s). This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS... 5 INTRODUCTION... 6 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM... 9 Key requirement: The leadership of public administration reform is established and the strategic framework provides the basis for implementing prioritised and sequenced reform activities aligned with the Government s financial circumstances Principle 1: The Government has developed and enacted an effective public administration reform agenda which addresses key challenges Principle 2: Public administration reform is purposefully implemented; reform outcome targets are set and regularly monitored Principle 3: Financial sustainability of public administration reform is ensured Key requirement: Public administration reform management enables guiding and steering reforms, determines the accountability for implementation and ensures the professional administration needed for reform implementation Principle 4: Public administration reform has robust and functioning co-ordination structures at both the political and administrative level to steer and manage the reform design and implementation process Principle 5: One leading institution has responsibility and capacity to manage the reform process; involved institutions have clear accountability and reform implementation capacity POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND CO-ORDINATION Key requirement: Centre of government institutions fulfil all functions critical to a well-organised, consistent and competent policy making system Principle 1: Centre of government institutions fulfil all functions critical to a well-organised, consistent and competent policy making system Principle 2: Clear horizontal procedures for governing national European integration process are established and enforced under the co-ordination of the responsible body Key requirement: Policy planning is harmonised, aligned with the Government s financial circumstances and ensures the Government is able to achieve its objectives Principle 3: Harmonised medium-term policy planning, with clear whole-of-government objectives, exists and is aligned with the financial circumstances of the Government; sector policies meet the Government objectives and are consistent with the medium-term budgetary framework Principle 4: A harmonised medium-term planning system for all processes relevant to European integration exists and is integrated into domestic policy planning Principle 5: Regular monitoring of the Government s performance enables public scrutiny and ensures that the Government is able to achieve its objectives Key requirement: Government decisions and legislation are transparent, legally compliant and accessible to the public; the work of the Government is scrutinised by the Parliament Principle 6: Government decisions are prepared in a transparent manner and based on the administration s professional judgement; the legal conformity of the decisions is ensured Principle 7: The Parliament scrutinises government policy making Key requirement: Inclusive, evidence-based policy and legislative development enables the achievement of intended policy objectives Principle 8: The organisational structure, procedures and staff allocation of the ministries ensure that developed policies and legislation are implementable and meet Government objectives

3 Principle 9: The European integration procedures and institutional set-up form an integral part of the policy development process and ensure systematic and timely transposition of the acquis Principle 10: The policy making and legal drafting process is evidence-based and impact assessment is regularly used across ministries Principle 11: Policies and legislation are designed in an inclusive manner that enables the active participation of society and allows for co-ordinating perspectives within the Government Principle 12: Legislation is consistent in structure, style, and language; legal drafting requirements are applied consistently across ministries; legislation is made publicly available PUBLIC SERVICE AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Key requirement: The scope of public service is clearly defined and applied in practice so that the policy and legal framework and institutional set-up for professional public service is in place Principle 1: The scope of public service is adequate, clearly defined and applied in practice Principle 2: The policy and legal framework for a professional and coherent public service is established and applied in practice; the institutional set-up enables consistent and effective human resource management practices across the public service Key requirement: Professionalism of public service is ensured by good managerial standards and human resource management practices Principle 3: The recruitment of public servants is based on merit and equal treatment in all its phases; the criteria for demotion and termination of public servants are explicit Principle 4: Direct or indirect political influence on senior managerial positions in the public service is prevented Principle 5: The remuneration system of public servants is based on the job classification; it is fair and transparent Principle 6: The professional development of public servants is ensured; this includes regular training, fair performance appraisal, and mobility and promotion based on objective and transparent criteria and merit Principle 7: Measures for promoting integrity, and preventing corruption and ensuring discipline in the public service are in place ACCOUNTABILITY Key requirement: Proper mechanisms are in place to ensure accountability of state administration bodies, including liability and transparency Principle 1: The overall organisation of central government is rational, follows adequate policies and regulations and provides for appropriate internal, political, judicial, social and independent accountability Principle 2: The right to access public information is enacted in legislation and consistently applied in practice Principle 3: Functioning mechanisms are in place to protect both the rights of the individual to good administration and the public interest Principle 4: Fair treatment in administrative disputes is guaranteed by internal administrative appeals and judicial reviews Principle 5: The public authorities assume liability in cases of wrongdoing and guarantee redress and/or adequate compensation SERVICE DELIVERY Key requirement: Administration is citizen-oriented; the quality and accessibility of public services is ensured Principle 1: Policy for citizen-oriented state administration is in place and applied Principle 2: Good administration is a key policy objective underpinning the delivery of public service, enacted in legislation and applied consistently in practice Principle 3: Mechanisms for ensuring the quality of public service are in place Principle 4: The accessibility of public services is ensured

4 PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT Key requirement: The Budget is formulated in compliance with transparent legal provisions and within an overall multi-annual framework, ensuring that the general government budget balance and the debt-to-gross domestic product ratio are on a sustainable path Principle 1: The Government publishes a medium-term budgetary framework on a general government basis that is founded on credible forecasts and covers a minimum time horizon of three years; all budget organisations operate within it Principle 2: The Budget is formulated in line with the national legal framework, with comprehensive spending appropriations that are consistent with the medium-term budgetary framework and are observed Key requirement: Accounting and reporting practices ensure transparency and public scrutiny over public finances; both cash and debt are managed centrally, in line with legal provisions Principle 3: The Ministry of Finance, or authorised central treasury authority, centrally controls disbursement of funds from the treasury single account and ensures cash liquidity Principle 4: There is a clear debt management strategy in place and implemented so that the country s overall debt target is respected and debt servicing costs are kept under control Principle 5: Budget transparency and scrutiny are ensured Key requirement: National financial management and control policy is in line with the requirements of Chapter 32 of European Union accession negotiations and is systematically implemented throughout the public sector Principle 6: The operational framework for financial management and control defines responsibilities and powers, and its application by the budget organisations is consistent with the legislation governing public financial management and public administration in general Principle 7: Each public organisation implements financial management and control in line with the overall financial management and control policy documents Key requirement: The internal audit function is established throughout the public sector and internal audit work is carried out according to international standards Principle 8: The operational framework for internal audit reflects international standards and its application by the budget organisations is consistent with the legislation governing public administration and public financial management in general Principle 9: Each public organisation implements internal audit in line with the overall internal audit policy documents as appropriate to the organisation Key requirement: Public procurement is regulated by duly enforced policies and procedures that reflect the principles of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union and the European Union acquis, and are supported by suitably competent and adequately resourced institutions Principle 10: Public procurement regulations (including public-private partnerships and concessions) are aligned with the acquis, include additional areas not covered by the acquis, are harmonised with corresponding regulations in other fields, and are duly enforced Principle 11: There is central institutional and administrative capacity to develop, implement and monitor procurement policy effectively and efficiently Key requirement: In case of alleged breaches of procurement rules, aggrieved parties have access to justice through an independent, transparent, effective and efficient remedies system Principle 12: The remedies system is aligned with the acquis standards of independence, probity and transparency and provides for rapid and competent handling of complaints and sanctions Key requirement: Contracting authorities are adequately staffed and resourced and carry out their work in accordance with applicable regulations and recognised good practice, interacting with an open and competitive supply market Principle 13: Public procurement operations comply with basic principles of equal treatment, nondiscrimination, proportionality and transparency, while ensuring the most efficient use of public funds and making best use of modern procurement techniques and methods Principle 14: Contracting authorities and entities have the appropriate capacities and practical guidelines and tools to ensure professional management of the full procurement cycle

5 Key requirement: The constitutional and legal framework guarantees the independence, mandate and organisation of the Supreme Audit Institution to perform its mandate autonomously according to the standards applied for its audit work, allowing for high-quality audits that impact on public sector functioning Principle 15: The independence, mandate and organisation of the Supreme Audit Institution are established and protected by the constitutional and legal framework and are respected in practice Principle 16: The Supreme Audit Institution applies standards in a neutral and objective manner to ensure high quality audits, which positively impact on the functioning of the public sector

6 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ACA CHU COFOG CoG CSC CSEC DG ECFIN EC EU FMC GAWP HRM HRMIS IMF INTOSAI ISSAI IPA MoF MoJ MTBF NGO OECD PAR PEFA PIFC PFM PPP RoP SAI TSA anti-corruption agency central harmonisation unit Classifications of the Functions of Government centre of government civil service commission civil service ethics commission Directorate General for Economic and Financial Affairs European Commission European Union financial management and control Government Annual Work Plan human resource management human resource management information system International Monetary Fund International Organisation of Supreme Audit Institutions International Standards of Supreme Audit Institutions Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance Ministry of Finance Ministry of Justice medium-term budgetary framework non-governmental organisation Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development public administration reform public expenditure and financial accountability Public Internal Financial Control public financial management public-private partnerships rules of procedure Supreme Audit Institution treasury single account 5

7 INTRODUCTION Public administration reform is fundamental in the European Union integration process A well-functioning public administration is a prerequisite for transparent and effective democratic governance. As the foundation of the functioning of the state, it determines a government s ability to provide public services and foster the country s competitiveness and growth. It also plays a fundamental role in the European integration (EI) process by enabling the implementation of crucial reforms and organising efficient accession dialogue with the European Union (EU). Hence, the EU enlargement criteria recognise and emphasise the need for a country to build a national public administration with the capacity to pursue principles of good administration and effectively transpose and implement the acquis communautaire. The European Commission (EC) has strengthened its focus on public administration reform (PAR) by outlining six key issues of reform and better integrating reform 1 in the enlargement process through Special Groups on PAR and stronger links with accession negotiations. The six key reform areas set out by the EC form the basis of the Principles of Public Administration, as described below. Aim and focus of the Principles of Public Administration The Principles define what good governance entails in practice and outline the main requirements to be followed by countries during the EU integration process. The Principles also feature a monitoring framework enabling regular analysis of the progress made in applying the Principles and setting country benchmarks. The concept of good administration has been progressively defined by EU countries and is included in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights 2. The notion of a European Administrative Space was set out by SIGMA in It includes components such as reliability, predictability, accountability and transparency, as well as technical and managerial competence, organisational capacity, financial sustainability and citizen participation. Although general good governance criteria are universal, these Principles are designed for countries that seek EU accession and receive EU assistance through the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA). The acquis requirements, as well as other EU guidelines and instructions, are the core of the Principles in the areas where acquis is in place. In other areas, the Principles are derived from international standards and requirements, as well as good practices in EU Member States and/or Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. As a minimum benchmark of good administration, countries should ensure compliance with these fundamental Principles. In each country, the Government s attention to a given Principle may vary depending on the governance structure, the administrative culture, the key country-specific challenges and the previous reform record. Thus, the framework enables establishment of a coherent set of requirements in all countries, while allowing a given country some flexibility in setting its PAR challenges and objectives. The Principles cover an area of the public sector referred to as state administration. This denomination is widely used in the countries of the Western Balkans. It indicates the two main elements of the scope: Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges , Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: COM(2014) 700 final, Brussels. Article 41. Right to good administration. 1. Every person has the right to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time by the Institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union. 2. This right includes: the right of every person to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken; the right of every person to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy; the obligation of the administration to give reasons for its decisions. European Principles for Public Administration, SIGMA Papers, No. 27, OECD Publishing, FD455B0079C9FE4E957DE2E41D6A25CA 6

8 public administration at state (national or central) level. The Principles also cover independent constitutional bodies, as well as the Parliament and judiciary within the scope of their scrutiny and oversight powers over the state administration. The extent to which a given candidate country or potential candidate applies these Principles in practice is an indication of the capacity of its national public administration to implement effectively the acquis, in accordance with the criteria defined by the European Council in Copenhagen (1993) and Madrid (1995). Analytical and monitoring framework The Principles are complemented by a monitoring framework, which makes it possible to follow progress made over time in developing the public administration. The monitoring framework features both quantitative and qualitative indicators; it focuses on the implementation of reforms and subsequent outcomes, i.e. how the administration performs in practice. Qualitative indicators measure the maturity of relevant public administration components on a scale of 1 (the lowest result) to 5 (the highest result), analysing the progress a country is making in applying the Principles. Exact definitions of the qualitative indicators scores will be published together with the OECD/SIGMA annual assessment in Quantitative indicators analyse and measure outputs and outcomes of the governance system. For each Principle, the analytical framework is described. It includes the definition of the methodological approach and lists information sources which are used for analysis and data collection. The evidence and data necessary for monitoring are collected during the SIGMA annual PAR assessment process. In addition to the indicators developed by SIGMA, the monitoring framework uses, where relevant, internationally recognised indicators (e.g. by the World Economic Forum and the World Bank). 7

9 1. Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform

10 Chapter 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFORM Achieving the necessary standard of public administration requires reforms in many areas of policy and administration. When planned and implemented on a fragmented and ad hoc basis, reforms may not transform the governance system and overall functioning of public administration as expected. Achieving results requires the Government to steer and co-ordinate the implementation of an overall reform vision and prioritised objectives. It is therefore important to approach public administration reforms sequentially and in a coherently planned way and to compile a reform agenda from a whole-ofgovernment perspective. Public administration reform (PAR) is one of the most important horizontal reform areas in each country because it provides the framework for implementing other policies. It is therefore equally important for European Union (EU) Member States, candidate countries and potential candidates, as it allows for building a system that provides a sound basis for implementing the EU acquis communautaire. Countries develop at different speeds and exhibit differences in their governance culture and approach to implementation of public administration reforms. However, some Principles are universally applicable in all countries and form the core of these Principles of Public Administration. The key requirements of reform leadership and functioning management system are at the heart of PAR policy and are critical in ensuring it is actually implemented and does not remain only on paper. The following chapter defines the five principles for strategic framework of PAR. KEY REQUIREMENTS AND PRINCIPLES Key requirement: The leadership of public administration reform is established and the strategic framework provides the basis for implementing prioritised and sequenced reform activities aligned with the Government s financial circumstances. Principle 1: The Government has developed and enacted an effective public administration reform agenda which addresses key challenges. Principle 2: Public administration reform is purposefully implemented; reform outcome targets are set and regularly monitored. Principle 3: Financial sustainability of public administration reform is ensured. Key requirement: Public administration reform management enables guiding and steering reforms, determines the accountability for implementation and ensures the professional administration needed for reform implementation. Principle 4: Public administration reform has robust and functioning co-ordination structures at both the political and administrative level to steer and manage the reform design and implementation process. Principle 5: One leading institution has responsibility and capacity to manage the reform process; involved institutions have clear accountability and reform implementation capacity. 9

11 Chapter 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform Key requirement: The leadership of public administration reform is established and the strategic framework provides the basis for implementing prioritised and sequenced reform activities aligned with the Government s financial circumstances. The critical deciding factor in policy implementation is the level of reform leadership at the political and/or highest administrative level. Successful implementation of PAR requires a country s key decision makers to share both an understanding of and collective commitment to its purpose and the will to develop an effectively functioning public administration as a prerequisite for delivering other policy commitments to citizens, businesses and external partners. In addition to top-level ministerial and official leadership, PAR also requires strategic and business planning documents that provide a clear roadmap for implementing individual policies. These planning documents should translate political-level priority statements into clear objectives, establish performance indicators to measure their level of achievement, designate actions and institutions responsible for realising them, allocate the necessary resources and provide other information for implementing the reform agenda. When planning documents are in place, their implementation needs to be supported by adequate financing and the overall progress of the reform monitored on the basis of the data on identified performance indicators. Principle 1: The Government has developed and enacted an effective public administration reform agenda which addresses key challenges. 1. There is a coherent vision of public administration reform shared by the key stakeholders, including the challenges, objectives, and key steps required for improvement. 2. Public administration reform is identified among the priorities in all key medium-term planning documents (Government Work Programme, Ex-pose of the Prime Minister, medium-term budgetary framework and Statement of Government Priorities). 3. The scope of public administration reform planning documents is complete and covers all necessary reform areas; reforms in different areas are clearly linked. 4. The objectives and steps identified in planning documents are fully consistent with the Government s priority statements. 5. Public administration reform objectives and the major steps to achieve these objectives are consistently applied and referenced in other planning documents that are relevant to implementing this policy (e.g. European integration strategies and plans). 6. One or more planning documents adopted at the Government level establish clear implementation plans for public administration reform, as a whole or for different parts of public administration reform. 7. Public administration reform planning documents include key reforms and development activities and avoid including ongoing and daily activities which do not lead to improvements. 8. To ensure enactment of public administration reform, planning documents contain all the necessary information, i.e. policy objectives and performance indicators, actions and costs, responsible institutions, implementation deadlines and monitoring and evaluation requirements. Analytical Framework Methodological approach The methods used are mostly qualitative and based on interviews with the highest-ranking officials at the political and administrative levels of public administration, combined with document analysis: Analysis of legislation with regard to a planning system to determine which types of documents are compulsory or voluntary and the overall hierarchy of planning documents. This leads to an understanding of both the formal requirements for, and the current situation in, the area of PAR. 10

12 Chapter 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform Interviews with relevant ministers and senior officials to determine the priority level of PAR. Ask for references to major Government documents acknowledging it as a priority. Also ask about concrete PAR policy objectives and major steps needed to implement them and compare with statements in major Government documents. Also aim to uncover during the interview process any supporting arguments (e.g. resourcing decisions, instances where PAR was discussed at the highest decision making levels, major reform decisions taken or laws or regulations approved) that support PAR as a Government priority. Interviews with officials responsible for managing and co-ordinating PAR to obtain information on the formal requirements for planning documents, as well as a list of planning documents on PAR policy, and their development procedures. This constitutes the entry point for further analysis. Analysis of key work planning documents establishing Government priorities to find mentions of PAR, its objectives and key implementation activities. Compare these findings with key decision makers statements. Focus the document analysis on two aspects a) mentions of PAR objectives and key steps; b) consistency of objectives and key steps across all of the most important Government work planning documents. When analysing planning documents, assess the quality of information, as evidenced by the key elements of clarity, structure and explicitness. Support this analysis with examples extracted from particular planning documents. Information sources The list of sources consulted is as follows: Indicators primary and secondary legislation on the planning system in a given country, as well as the Government s long, medium and short-term work planning documents; interviews with ministers and senior officials in Government institutions involved in implementing PAR; interviews with officials in institutions involved in steering and co-ordinating PAR, as well as at least two managers in institutions implementing part of PAR; interviews with up to three non-governmental stakeholders monitoring implementation of the whole or part of PAR; external reviews and assessments of the whole or part of PAR by international organisations and/or technical assistance projects; Government Work Programmes, Ex-pose of the Prime Minister, medium-term expenditure framework (MTEF) and Statement of Government Priorities or similar documents (if applicable), defining the Government s priority areas; strategic and operational planning documents covering PAR issues; data on the financing of different parts of PAR. Ratio of central planning documents featuring PAR objectives and priorities uniformly and coherently 4. 4 The central planning documents are: the Government Work Programme; Ex-pose of the Prime Minister; the National Development Strategy; the MTEF; the Statement of Government Priorities. The ratio is calculated based on document analysis. First, the total number of key Government work planning documents is calculated based on the results of document mapping. Second, PAR policy objectives and key steps needed to achieve them are extracted from all of the key work planning documents and their mutual consistency compared. Third, the number of documents in which PAR policy objectives and key steps in achieving them appear uniformly and coherently is divided with the total number of key Government work planning documents 11

13 Chapter 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform Share of public administration development activities and reforms from all activities in PAR planning documents 5. Extent to which the scope of PAR central planning document(s) is complete. Principle 2: Public administration reform is purposefully implemented; reform outcome targets are set and regularly monitored. 1. Reform objectives and targets are set in planning documents. 2. Planning documents that translate Government public administration policy feature a set of performance indicators (aligned with objectives) that monitor implementation progress or reform failure. 3. Performance indicators are measurable, relevant to the objectives and support accountability arrangements between institutions and responsible managers. 4. A data collection system for all identified indicators used in public administration reform provides ministers and officials with timely and accurate data. 5. Public administration reform progress reports are conducted at least every other year, made publicly available and a basis for discussion over implementation in political and top administrative level. 6. Functioning central steering and strategy review processes are in place. 7. Civil society and the business community are involved in the monitoring and review process and enabled to provide input on implementation performance and reform challenges. Analytical Framework Methodological approach The methods used are largely qualitative and are based on an analysis of legislation and interviews with responsible officials: Analysis of primary and/or secondary legislation to determine the formal requirements for drawing up planning documents with special attention paid to requirements for performance measurement, monitoring and evaluation. Analysis (if available) of primary and/or secondary legislation and policy statements to determine the country s approach to performance measurement in Government policies. This analysis allows a more complete evaluation of the actual performance measurement system included in planning document or PAR document(s). Analyse the planning documents setting out PAR objectives and activities to determine whether a performance measurement system exists and, if so, assess the overall quality of its objectives and indicators. Analysis of the links between objectives and indicators and between objectives and activities. Assess the extent to which objectives can be categorised as SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and timely). Analysis of reports on progress achieved in the area of PAR to determine how the performance measurement system was applied and the quality of the conclusions drawn from it. This analysis will also bring to light problems with data gathering in cases where certain data on included indicators are not available. Information sources The list of sources consulted is as follows: 5 identified through document mapping and multiplied by 100 to establish the percentage or result of the ratio measurement. Basis for defining activities are Government-adopted planning documents or documents on PAR implementation. 12

14 Chapter 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform primary and secondary legislation on performance measurement of policies in general and PAR in particular; planning documents setting out PAR policy, various planning documents on aspects of PAR implementation; progress assessments produced by different international organisations and technical assistance projects, including international comparisons of governance and PAR issues; interviews with representatives of institutions involved in implementing PAR. Indicators Annual implementation backlog of public administration development activities and reforms 6. Percentage of fulfilled PAR objectives 7. Extent to which a comprehensive PAR reporting and monitoring system is in place. Principle 3: Financial sustainability of public administration reform is ensured. 1. The actions or reform measures established in the planning documents contain information on the (human and financial) resources required to implement them. To ensure they are sustainable, additional expenditure needs are broken down into temporary and permanent costs. 2. To ensure the reform is sustainable, the cost appraisal of reform measures defines the share and source of donor assistance and expected financing from Government revenues. 3. The medium-term budgetary framework acknowledges public administration reform as one of the Government priorities and sets out the approximate amount of resources available for this reform. This amount is in line with the budget allocated to public administration reform either in central planning documents or in the separate public administration reform strategy. 4. Financial estimations of costs of any reforms requiring European Union assistance are in line with the Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance programme budget for the public administration reform sector. Analytical Framework Methodological approach The methods used are largely qualitative and based on an analysis of legislation, planning documents, budget documents and interviews: Analysis of planning documents describing PAR policy, the objectives and activities needed to achieve these objectives, to determine whether all of the activities are properly costed and resourced as a measure of planning quality. Analysis of reports on PAR implementation to determine the financing of - and spending on - the policy. Analysis of budget documents (law, annual and medium-term) to understand the process of assigning resources to policies in general and the PAR financing process in particular, including requests for funds. Analysis of MTEFs (if any) to determine whether they include PAR as one of the Government s expenditure priorities and whether the Government s stated priorities match resource flows. 6 7 The basis for defining activities is Government-adopted planning documents or documents on PAR implementation. Only activities which are targeted to development or describing reforms are taken into account, ongoing and daily activities are not included. The ratio is calculated by dividing the total number of implemented PAR-related activities by the total number of activities planned for that particular year. Assessment is based on measurable reform objectives set by the Government in planning document(s). Number of fulfilled reform objectives is compared with all reform objectives. In case reform objectives are not set by the Government, the outcome of the assessment will be 0% fulfilment rate. 13

15 Chapter 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform Support document analysis with interviews of officials in relevant internal and external institutions to assess the consistency between theory and practice. Information sources The list of sources consulted is as follows: Indicators MTEF, annual budget requests of ministries involved in implementing PAR and the Law on Annual Budget, as well as other budget documents dealing with appropriation of financial resources to implement Government policies; PAR planning documents and implementation reports, as well as other planning documents of institutions providing information on budget requests; interviews with representatives of the institution co-ordinating PAR and at least two managers from institutions implementing PAR; interviews with representatives of institution(s) responsible for donor co-ordination, as well as analysis of the primary data sources available through them; interviews with representatives of the country s three biggest donors on foreign assistance devoted to PAR-related activities. Share of resourced and costed PAR measures. 8 Ratio between planned PAR Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (IPA) funding in the IPA sectoral programme and the national planning documents Resourced and costed measures and compared with overall number of measures in PAR planning document(s). IPA PAR sector estimated budget is based on the Country Strategy Paper or PAR sector programme; national PAR sector planning document(s) may include several strategies covering EU PAR sectors (for example, public financial management strategy, and PAR strategy). 14

16 Chapter 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform Key requirement: Public administration reform management enables guiding and steering reforms, determines the accountability for implementation and ensures the professional administration needed for reform implementation. PAR leadership requires active and ongoing participation at the highest ministerial and official levels to formulate, plan, implement, monitor and evaluate this policy area. As a horizontal policy, PAR touches all aspects of public administration, including staffing levels, duplication of functions, performance measurement, efficiency and effectiveness. It is therefore essential that PAR implementation is driven from the top. A clear and working structure for PAR management and co-ordination is a prerequisite for successful implementation of the Government policy in this area. Robust mechanisms should be in place to ensure a constant flow of analytical information between ministers and officials to inform decisions on further work. In addition, ministers must inform citizens of the progress and achievements of the reform, in line with the PAR communication strategy and/or plan. There should be a clear division of functions and responsibilities between different institutions with regard to the elaboration, adoption, implementation, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of PAR. The people in charge of strategic and day-to-day management, co-ordination and implementation of PAR are key to its success. Their leadership, motivation, experience and knowledge are critical to preparing good quality planning documents and legal acts, carrying out analytical tasks and driving implementation. Principle 4: Public administration reform has robust and functioning co-ordination structures at both the political and administrative level to steer and manage the reform design and implementation process. 1. At the political level there is a formalised discussion and decision making forum (regular Government meetings can also play this role) dedicated to public administration reform management that meets regularly to review progress and initiate required changes. 2. To support the discussion and decision making at the political level, there is a formalised administrative co-ordination structure. This handles operational public administration reform management issues, provides regular reports on progress in public administration reform implementation, identifies obstacles to progress and devises possible ways to overcome them. 3. All key public administration reform stakeholders are represented in the co-ordination structures. Non-governmental organisations with relevant competence and capacity are consulted regularly. 4. The functions and responsibilities of both political and administrative level management and coordination structures are clearly defined and observed. 5. The secretariat functions to support management and co-ordination structures are carried out by the institution or ministry with the legally defined function and responsibility for overall coordination of the reform. Analytical Framework Methodological approach The methods used are mostly qualitative and are based on document analysis and interviews with relevant ministers and officials: Analysis of primary and/or secondary legislation to determine the types, functions and responsibilities of PAR management and co-ordination mechanisms (formalised bodies), as well as the roles of the different institutions within them. Analysis of agendas, meeting minutes and participant lists to determine the frequency of meetings, participation levels and topics discussed. This also yields information on the various 15

17 Chapter 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform reports and documents prepared for the respective management and co-ordination mechanisms and their relevance to overall PAR policy objectives and activities. Determine the attendance rates of the permanent members of various forums by analysing participant lists to indicate the importance that different stakeholders attribute to PAR. Special attention to the attendance of representatives of centre of government institutions should be paid to ensure that the country s senior ministers and officials recognise the importance of PAR. Interviews with key stakeholders to assess the actual level of informal co-ordination and communication efforts between the institution responsible for overall co-ordination of PAR and institutions involved in its implementation. Information sources The list of sources consulted is as follows: Indicators primary and/or secondary legislation establishing the functions and responsibilities of formalised forums at ministerial and/or official levels; agendas, meeting minutes and attendee lists of discussion and decision making forums at ministerial and/or official levels; reports on implementation of decisions of formalised discussions and decision making forums at ministerial and/or official levels; interviews with participants of formalised forums on PAR at ministerial and/or official levels. Frequency of PAR-related political discussions 10. Implementation rate of decisions made by political and administrative-level PAR co-ordination forums 11. Principle 5: One leading institution has responsibility and capacity to manage the reform process; involved institutions have clear accountability and reform implementation capacity. 1. Regulation(s) designate one institution with overall responsibility for leading and co-ordinating public administration reform policy and implementation and the lead institution has the capacity to carry out its responsibilities. 2. Division of functions and responsibilities between institutions involved in implementing public administration reform is clear and there is no duplication or overlap. 3. Institutions involved in implementing public administration reform are aware of their functions and responsibilities and have the capacity to carry them out. 4. Officials responsible for managing and co-ordinating public administration reform are experienced; they have knowledge of, and skills in, communication, team work, conceptual thinking, analytical thinking, creative thinking, development, planning and organisation and receive regular training. Analytical Framework Methodological approach The methods used are mostly qualitative and are based on an analysis of legislation and interviews: Number of meetings per year of political-level decision making bodies (e.g. Government meetings, Government committee meetings, meetings of PAR Council or any other relevant body) during which PAR-related strategic documents/issues were discussed. Number of fulfilled decisions out of the total number of decisions of formalised forums at both the political and administrative levels. 16

18 Chapter 1 Strategic Framework of Public Administration Reform Analysis of regulation to determine PAR-related functions and responsibilities and their allocation amongst institutions to ensure there are no overlaps or gaps. Pay special attention to whether regulation clearly identifies one institution that is primarily responsible for managing and co-ordinating PAR. Analysis of all identified PAR-related functions to determine whether all steps in the policy cycle are mentioned and are assigned for implementation to particular institutions. Interviews to test knowledge and understanding of the functions assigned to different institutions involved in implementing PAR. Analysis of relevant documents (e.g. relevant legislation, statutes, job descriptions, competency handbooks) to establish the functions, tasks and responsibilities of officials involved in PAR management, co-ordination and implementation. Interviews with officials in charge of PAR implementation to establish their previous working experience, knowledge, competences and understanding of their tasks and responsibilities related to reform management (as described in their respective job descriptions). Assessment of the content and frequency of formal and informal capacity building and training opportunities. Information sources The list of sources consulted is as follows: Indicators regulation setting the PAR co-ordination and management framework; internal procedures of institutions, as well as budget information for the current year providing information on the staffing numbers, turnover rates and salary levels of institutions involved in implementing PAR; interviews with representatives of different institutions involved in implementing PAR; functional reviews (if available) of PAR-related issues by different national or international public or non-governmental organisations; capacity assessment reports prepared by national institutions or international organisations; annual reports of institutions (at the national and regional levels) responsible for training officials and primary data of these institutions on the nature and frequency of courses offered and number of officials trained. Annual staff turnover in leading PAR unit. Proportion of leading PAR unit staff that has undertaken at least two PAR-related trainings during the last year. Extent to which accountability over PAR functions is established. 17

19 2. Policy Development and Co-ordination 2 Policy Development and Co-ordination

20 Chapter 2 Policy Development and Co-ordination POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND CO-ORDINATION The preparations for accession and membership need to be underpinned by arrangements and capacities for policy planning, development, co-ordination and implementation that: enable consistent policy planning and co-ordination of government activities, including priority setting in relation to European Union (EU) accession and membership issues; create substantive and consistent polices that are affordable, economically efficient and financially sustainable; include consultation with internal and external stakeholders; ensure that policies are properly implemented, communicated and monitored; support transposition and implementation of the acquis communautaire in all sectors; lay the foundations for operating effectively as an EU Member State. The Principles detail these general foundations. The following chapter defines four key requirements and twelve principles for ensuring quality policy outcomes and preparing for EU accession and membership. These requirements need to be enhanced as a country moves along the European integration (EI) path. Thus, the Principles distinguish when necessary between the different needs and stages of EI 12. KEY REQUIREMENTS AND PRINCIPLES Key requirement: Centre of government institutions fulfil all functions critical to a well-organised, consistent and competent policy making system. Principle 1: Centre of government institutions fulfil all functions critical to a well-organised, consistent and competent policy making system. Principle 2: Clear horizontal procedures for governing national European integration process are established and enforced under the co-ordination of the responsible body. Key requirement: Policy planning is harmonised, aligned with the Government s financial circumstances and ensures the Government is able to achieve its objectives. Principle 3: Harmonised medium-term policy planning, with clear whole-of-government objectives, exists and is aligned with the financial circumstances of the Government; sector policies meet the Government objectives and are consistent with the medium-term budgetary framework. Principle 4: A harmonised medium-term planning system for all processes relevant to European integration exists and is integrated into domestic policy planning. Principle 5: Regular monitoring of the Government s performance enables public scrutiny and ensures that the Government is able to achieve its objectives. Key requirement: Government decisions and legislation are transparent, legally compliant and accessible to the public; the work of the Government is scrutinised by the Parliament. Principle 6: Government decisions are prepared in a transparent manner and based on the administration s professional judgement; the legal conformity of the decisions is ensured. Principle 7: The Parliament scrutinises government policy making. 12 In order to differentiate between the degree to which countries aspire to integrate with Europe and the scope and depth of their commitment to and actual stage of EI, this methodology has adopted a slightly altered categorisation of Lippert et al. (2001) to describe the different phases of integration. See also Lippert, B., G. Umbach & W. Wessels (2001), Europeanization of CEE executives: EU membership negotiations as a shaping power, in the Journal of European Public Policy, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp